On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 17:22, Leif Mortenson wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > >hmmm. I believe the board chose to get involved based on comments > >regarding avalon that were made on other mailing lists. Not so sure. > >Greg Stein's post: > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103682529522761&w=2 > > > Ok, I agree with what Greg said. But he emphasized the need to avoid > branching and > to make a goal of the PMC be getting the team to start working together > with the > common goal of a release. He even suggested merging all of the various CVS > repositories back together to "help to create that 'single community' > concept." > The talk now is of branching Phoenix off into a separate Committer group > all together. > I don't see how that would really solve the problems however as Phoenix > is built > on top of Avalon. If there were any incompatible changes made to Avalon > that would > affect Phoenix. Phoenix members would therefor still have to be heavily > involved > in Avalon.
Again, I totally agree. Note a PMC basically should have little to nothing to say about something like this (other than "sad you feel it has to be this way"). If the people that develop phoenix want to take phoenix elsewhere, they are free to do so (always have been, always will be. part of how aapche works). > >>I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this > >>subject over the > >>past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony = > >>better product > >>is false. > >> > >agreed. The proposal on the table here is not about stricter rules or > >more harmony or better products. There's a lot of stuff it is not about, > >I won't repeat all my thoughts on this; I have attempted a summary here: > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103704193526633&w=2 > > > Ok, I had only made it part way into that mail before being called off > to a meeting. Sorry. nevermind. There's a lot of stuff on the table. It's much better to read half and voice concerns than not voice concerns at all! <snip/> > All in all I agree with what you said in the above post. It sounds like > the PMC would > in theory enable the new Avalon board to steer the direction of the > project as a whole. > But my question is how will that be any different from now. The same > members who > are fighting about those directions are all on the new PMC board (as > they should be) > I agree with the need to clean things up and refocus the goals of > Avalon. But that can > be done now. the cleaning up, the refocusing...99% of that is rather technical stuff that the community as a whole faces, and will have to face regardless of an Avalon PMC setup. > If the goal of the PMC is to allow us to create an avolon.apache.org > domain and become > a top level project. Then as Greg said, a PMC is not necessary to do that. yup. > >You can see the proposal on the table as falling down into two bits: > > > >- Setting up an Avalon PMC. This is mostly about stuff like legal > >responsibility and protection, apache wide reorganization, etc. > > > Do we need protection that is different that what the current Apache > agreement > offers? I am not a lawyer.....this is not legal advice.....it may not be accurate... real short answer: yes. this is a long story I'm not the best to explain about (you may want to search for some posts by Roy Fielding on this topic on the community@apache and/or reorg@apache lists for more information). Basically a PMC should vote on a release of software, is then legally responsible, and is then legally protected by the ASF. The Jakarta PMC does not vote on our releases, hence individuals are legally accountable. The ASF does not legally protect individuals. If there is a breach of MS patents in avalon software, the 'thing' that will likely get sued atm will be all the individuals. Legal safety (ie not having to worry beyond "put this text in your sourcefiles") is one of the big benefits apache offers to software communities, and it would be real nice to have as much of it as possible. > >- modifying the scope of the Avalon project. I think my earlier e-mail > >on this on November 10th outlines how the proposal wording could be > >interpreted regarding a modified scope: > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103695259224131&w=2 > >The reason this scope modification is part of the proposal is that a > >resolution for a top level project to handle all of avalon its current > >(de-facto) scope is probably not so smart (it seems just about everyone > >doesn't like the current de-facto avalon scope). > > > In this message you start by saying that the vote should be pushed back > a month. > That would have been good to gain a consensus amongst all of the committers. > Overall I agree now that creating a PMC would be a good idea. But I am > more than > a little worried at the pace at which is being pushed forward amidst all > of the > problems that are going on right now. me too. I think we'll be alright, though. There won't be that much changing if the resolution is accepted, and we can change things again if it seems like a good idea. Think about how many times the Jakarta PMC did something involving avalon directly. Not very often if you ask me. Any new Avalon PMC will probably be a little more active (for example, the PMC will vote on software releases, rather than the committers; this is the way it is supposed to work; I'd also hope that such a PMC would do some of things Greg suggested), but mostly, think "background". For sure, when we wrap up these discussions, I'm going to really slow down for a week or so and do nothing but eat pretzels, watch the simpsons, and do some hacking :D > >your vote is a valid vote on a proposal that needs majority approval. I > >think it is very desirable to have consensus approval rather than just > >majority, so your vote is very important to me. This e-mail is to > >outline why I have voted +1 on the Avalon PMC proposal while further > >agreeing to just about everything you say in this e-mail. > > > After reading up on what your goals are with the PMC. I am closer to a > +0 now. But > I would still like to see all involved slow down a bit. I have not seen > favorable > comments from Peter or Berin on this yet. And it seems like they should > be agreeing > before this was made final. > As for Peter and Berin wanting to be on the board of the PMC, that doesn't > necessarily mean that they agree with it. They would just need to be, > and certainly > have every right to be there when and if it is formed. again, I mostly agree. I think we won't be going too quickly from here on regardless of what happens. The vote that was held now will mean next to nothing in practice (unless we get sued) until we actually start making changes. Before we do any of that, there should be ample opportunity for everyone with an interest to form and express thoughts and opinions. > >According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of > >the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into > >account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make > >sure. > > > Understood, but the vote count is only 8 committers (Peter Royal had not > voted). > That seems way to low to be telling the board that there was consensus > on the Avalon > team for the creation of the PMC. I can see why it does seem like that. However, that's what the jakarta project guidelines say we had (before you posted your message), so that is what we told the board (and everyone else). <yawn/>, <rub area="temples"/>, goodnight, - Leo Simons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
